April 2026

The Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”) Rules Out Attorneys’ Fees Due to Lack of Formal Notice in the Definitive Enforcement Phase

A recent ruling by the Third Panel of the STJ regarding the awarding of attorneys’ fees in the enforcement of court judgments introduced a significant limitation on the requirements for the imposition of such fees at the definitive enforcement stage.

The dispute originated in a lawsuit seeking damages for environmental harm. During the provisional enforcement phase, attorneys’ fees were awarded and subsequently released upon the posting of a bond. When the enforcement proceedings were converted to their definitive stage, the trial court ordered the return of those amounts, on the grounds that the fees had been improperly awarded — a position upheld by the Court of Appeals of the State of Paraná.

In examining the appeal, the central issue was whether attorneys’ fees could be imposed following the conversion of provisional enforcement into definitive enforcement, particularly given that the debtor had not voluntarily made payment. The reporting Justice, Minister Daniela Teixeira, took the position that such fees were warranted, noting that even under the former Code of Civil Procedure of 1973, the conversion to definitive enforcement, combined with the absence of voluntary payment, would justify the award of attorneys’ fees, in light of STJ Precedent No. 517 and Binding Precedent No. 525.

However, the dissenting view put forward by Minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva ultimately prevailed. The majority adopted a stricter interpretation of Binding Precedent No. 525/STJ, holding that the imposition of attorneys’ fees at the definitive enforcement stage requires, as an indispensable prerequisite, that the debtor first be formally served with notice to make voluntary payment. Without such notice, a finding of default cannot be established, and consequently no attorneys’ fees may be imposed, since this procedural step is essential to determining whether voluntary payment was indeed withheld.

The ruling further emphasized that the deposit made during the provisional enforcement phase cannot be construed as resistance to fulfilling the obligation; rather, it constitutes a legitimate measure to secure the judgment and does not, therefore, give rise to penalties otherwise applicable in the definitive enforcement stage. In that context, the Court also recognized the obligation to return the attorneys’ fees that had previously been released, given the provisional nature of the decision that had authorized their release and the principle prohibiting unjust enrichment.

In sum, the Court held that the absence of formal notice to the debtor to make voluntary payment at the definitive enforcement stage bars the imposition of attorneys’ fees — as an essential procedural prerequisite is lacking — and also warrants the restitution of amounts released during the provisional phase, reaffirming the need for strict adherence to the procedural steps set forth in Binding Precedent No. 525/STJ. Read more

 

STJ Authorizes Use of Serp-Jud for Locating Attachable Assets

The Fourth Panel of the STJ issued a significant ruling on the use of the Electronic System of Public Registries (Serp-Jud) as a tool for locating attachable assets in enforcement proceedings, in connection with Special Appeal No. 2.226.101/SC.

The case concerned whether the system could be used to identify assets subject to attachment in enforcement proceedings based on an extrajudicial instrument. The Court of Appeals of the State of Santa Catarina had denied the request, citing the absence of specific statutory authority and applying a restrictive interpretation of the tool’s permissible uses.

In examining the matter, the reporting Justice highlighted that the Code of Civil Procedure grants judges broad powers to adopt measures aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of enforcement proceedings, including the use of technological tools. He further noted that Federal Law No. 14,382/2022 established Serp precisely to consolidate information from public registries, enabling the identification of debtors’ assets and rights.

The ruling also placed Serp-Jud on equal footing with other established systems, such as BacenJud, Renajud, and Infojud, all of which are accepted as tools for locating assets without requiring that other investigative measures be exhausted first.

On that basis, the Panel granted the special appeal, set aside the lower court ruling, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the recognized permissibility of using Serp-Jud, subject to a duly reasoned judicial order. Read more

 

STJ Rules Out Statute of Limitations on Claims for Damages Arising from Compulsory Adjudication

The Third Panel of the STJ issued a notable ruling on compulsory adjudication of real property, establishing that the remedy requires full payment of the agreed purchase price.

The case involved a dispute over whether ownership could be compulsorily transferred despite an outstanding balance on the purchase price, albeit a small one. The lower court had allowed for such a transfer, applying the doctrine of substantial performance.

Upon reviewing the matter, the reporting Justice emphasized that compulsory adjudication is premised on the buyer’s complete fulfillment of the contractual obligation, since the remedy serves to substitute the seller’s consent in formalizing the definitive deed of conveyance. Accordingly, any outstanding balance — however small — bars recognition of the buyer’s right to compulsory adjudication.

The Panel also underscored the incompatibility between the doctrine of substantial performance and compulsory adjudication, given that a forced transfer of ownership demands full discharge of the obligation.

In conclusion, the Panel upheld the denial of adjudication in the case, reinforcing the principle that full payment under the purchase agreement is an indispensable requirement for the compulsory transfer of real property. Read more

 

STJ Authorizes Use of Serp-Jud for Locating Attachable Assets

The Fourth Panel of the STJ issued a significant ruling on the use of the Electronic System of Public Registries (Serp-Jud) as a tool for locating assets subject to attachment in civil enforcement proceedings.

The case concerned whether the system could be used in enforcement proceedings based on an extrajudicial instrument, after lower courts had denied the request on the grounds of absence of specific statutory authority and a restrictive interpretation of the tool’s permissible uses.

In examining the matter, the reporting Justice underscored that the Code of Civil Procedure grants judges broad powers to adopt measures aimed at ensuring effective enforcement, including through the use of technological tools. He also noted that Federal Law No. 14,382/2022 created Serp specifically to consolidate public registry data, enabling the identification of debtors’ assets and rights.

The Panel further placed Serp-Jud on equal footing with established systems such as BacenJud, Renajud, and Infojud, all of which are accepted for asset-location purposes without requiring the prior exhaustion of other investigative measures.

The Court also noted that the mere use of the tool does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the debtor’s rights, and that the presiding judge may adopt appropriate measures to protect any sensitive data involved, including ordering confidentiality of the proceedings where necessary.

Against this backdrop, the Panel granted the special appeal, set aside the challenged ruling, and remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the recognized permissibility of using Serp-Jud, provided such use is grounded in a duly reasoned judicial order. Read more

 

STJ Declines to Hear Appeal on Attachment Bond Requirement Due to Failure to Challenge All Grounds

The Fourth Panel of the STJ, in ruling on Interlocutory Appeal in Special Appeal (AREsp) No. 2.803.509, declined to hear a special appeal challenging the requirement of a prior bond as a condition for granting attachment in enforcement proceedings based on an extrajudicial instrument. The Panel held that the appellant had failed to challenge all the independent grounds supporting the lower court’s decision, which triggered the application of Precedent No. 283 of the Brazilian Supreme Court (“STF”), and further found that overturning the lower court’s conclusion would require re-examination of facts and evidence — a review barred by STJ Precedent No. 7.

The dispute originated in enforcement proceedings brought by an investment fund against an educational institution, in which attachment orders totaling approximately R$ 196 million were granted. The Court of Appeals of the State of São Paulo, however, made those attachment orders conditional upon the prior posting of a bond, on the grounds that appeals challenging the underlying debt were still pending — a circumstance that, in the court’s view, warranted the analogous application of the rules governing provisional enforcement of judgments.

According to the reporting Justice, Minister Raul Araújo, the special appeal was inadmissible because the appellant had failed to specifically challenge all the independent grounds on which the lower court’s decision rested. STF Precedent No. 283 was therefore applied, under which an appeal is inadmissible where the challenged decision rests on an adequate and independent ground that the appellant did not contest.

In the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the bond requirement could not be revisited, since altering the lower court’s conclusion would necessitate a fresh review of the factual circumstances of the proceedings — in particular, the pendency of appeals regarding the enforced debt and the scope of the attachments sought. Such a review is precluded by STJ Precedent No. 7, which bars the re-examination of evidentiary matters in special appeals.

The decision reinforces the principle that admissibility of a special appeal depends on the appellant’s specific challenge to all sufficient and independent grounds of the decision under review. It also reaffirms that the STJ cannot, in the context of a special appeal, reassess the factual and evidentiary circumstances that led the lower court to impose a bond as a condition for effecting high-value attachments. Read more

 

STJ Defines the Application of Procedural Connection Rules in Class Action Lawsuits

The First Section of the STJ, in ruling on the Interlocutory Motion in Jurisdictional Conflict No. 202.644/ES, applied the holding established by the STF under Binding Precedent No. 1.075 to find that, in class action lawsuits of national or regional scope, jurisdiction must be vested in the court that first took cognizance of one of the related claims. As a result, the automatic application of STJ Precedent No. 235 — under which procedural connection does not compel consolidation of proceedings when one of them has already been decided — was displaced.

The dispute originated in a class action lawsuit filed before the Federal Court in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, aimed at enjoining allegedly abusive commercial practices by telecommunications carriers. Upon identifying lis pendens or a relationship of containment with a prior class action pending before the Federal Court in the State of Espírito Santo, the Porto Alegre court ordered the consolidation of the proceedings. The Espírito Santo court, however, resisted consolidation on the grounds that the earlier action had recently been decided at first instance.

According to the reporting Justice, Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, the holding established under STF Binding Precedent No. 1.075 requires that, in class actions with national or regional effects, jurisdiction must follow the prevention principle — that is, it must be vested in the court that first took cognizance of one of the related or encompassing collective claims. Accordingly, while STJ Precedent No. 235 provides that procedural connection does not compel consolidation once one of the cases has been decided, that rule does not automatically prevail over the specific framework governing collective redress.

In the circumstances of the case, the Court found that both class actions addressed the same collective dispute — relating to the provision of telecommunications services and the protection of consumers at the national level. On that basis, the Court applied the holding under STF Binding Precedent No. 1.075 to concentrate jurisdiction in the court that first took cognizance of the collective claim, even though one of the actions had already been decided at first instance.

The ruling reinforces the principle that STF Binding Precedent No. 1.075 should govern the determination of jurisdiction in class actions of national or regional scope, giving priority to prevention and uniformity of adjudication. It also consolidates the understanding that STJ Precedent No. 235 does not, standing alone, bar the consolidation or concentration of related collective actions where broad-reaching collective relief is at stake. Read more